On 14 November 2016 at 21:31, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana....@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 at 19:59, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> On 14 November 2016 at 18:54, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Christophe Lyon >> > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> So if we say that the current behaviour has to keep being the default, >> >> so that users think about what they are really doing, >> > >> > Having a toolchain not work by default to force users to think, isn't a >> > winning strategy. >> > >> > Everything should always, just work. Those things that don't, we should >> > fix. >> > >> I tend to agree :-) >> >> Maybe Ramana changed his mind and would now no longer want to force >> users to think? > > > > I haven't been able to deal with this thread having being in and out of the > office for the past month thanks to various reasons. I am not back at my > desk until next week for various reasons and ran out of time when I was at > my desk to get back to this and actually fix the comments in newlib patch > review. > > > https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2015/msg00653.html >
Thanks for the pointer, I missed it. > This seems to have dropped between the cracks for various reasons but that > was the approach I was going for. Some of the points made are taken, but > having users not think about what they want to do about synchronisation and > just provide empty stub functions which result in random run time crashes > aren't correct in my book. If anyone is interested in moving forward I would > suggest they take that approach or refine it further. > > > Thanks, > Ramana >
